Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (7216)	11/21/1999 11:47:00 PM
From: Ward Knutson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

Richard they were not touting, they merely reported an observation in a Phase I trial. You are incredibly mistaken if you think this company has a self-promotion problem. 3 Patients ? Not citing three patients, in the case of prostate (a trial with the most reported data, their first phase II trial) it was 16 of 21 at the time they last reported. What has been officially reported is a taste of early Phase II results. They are managing the information flow very prudently, in fact to the distaste of those hungry for more. More insight comes from speaking with those who have close contact with the drug at various stages of its development, people who actually know of its progress not gut feel it to be a high risk "game". It is quite obvious to me that you are not in tune with what is an exciting and strong trend being built by HMAF. You don't comprehend how strong the models were for this drug, you don't understand the significance of the intensifying NCI participation. You don't reach out to seek real knowledge as it pertains to acylfulvenes in a timely manner, and yet you portray yourself as some type of authority figure. With all that you don't know or recognize I can understand why you have openly mocked and criticized Blitzer for playing this "game". Blitzer knows MGI Pharma better than yourself, I trust his judgement and decision making as it pertains to MGI Pharma and could care less what your spin derived from a distaste for Blitzer has to say. It is your gut calling this such a leveraged gamble, you don't know what Chuck Blitzer knows. 950k annualized ? Oh I see, so they will sell no product for PNU next year, and the rest of the revenue is all of a sudden stagnant as well...is that right...well you better let them know. When booking 90% plus GPM and growing revenues at 40%, funny but a significant portion falls to available cash. Angry ? No, just emphasizing that your take on MGI is nothing more than a gut feel influenced heavily by a distaste for Blitzer's style and your generalization that every chemo-agent being developed is a "leveraged gamble". You imply that he had a risk-free niche business model available along the way. That may be the case today but there was an incredible amount of righting of the ship that needed attention before getting to this point. There were talented people that brought Salagen to this Company but they fumbled miserably as a team in serving the most vital function - selling it. Blitzer fixed that problem and now they are on the way. If you choose to call it leveraged gambling so be it, I bet Chuck likes the odds - he is holding all the cards and you can't see them.